1. family and parenting
2. children

Reading Recovery™ annual technical report
for the United Kingdom and the Republic of
Ireland: 2012-13
European Centre for Reading Recovery
Institute of Education
University of London
20 Bedford Way
London WC1H 0AL
Tel: 020 7612 6585
Email: readrec@ioe.ac.uk
Web: http://readingrecovery.ioe.ac.uk/
Produced by the European Centre for Reading Recovery, using software licensed from the
International Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University.
The name Reading Recovery is a registered trademark of the Institute of Education, University
of London.
Contents
Headline findings
Introduction
Questions for evaluation
1: How many children were supported by the Reading Recovery teacher and which children
were they?
a)
Size of implementation
b)
Characteristics of the cohort
2: What were the programme outcomes for Reading Recovery children?
a)
Programme outcomes
b)
Disaggregated outcomes
c)
Length of programmes
3: What were the literacy levels of children in the Reading Recovery programme?
4: Where were Reading Recovery children placed in a register of Special Educational Need at
the beginning of their programme, and following their programme?
5: What progress did children make after Reading Recovery?
a)
Accelerated progress (discontinued)
b)
Progress (referred)
6: What were the results of National Assessments for Reading Recovery children (England
only)?
a)
Key Stage One National Assessments
b)
Key Stage Two National Assessments
7: What was the efficiency of the Reading Recovery implementation?
a)
Experience
b)
Teacher responsibilities
c)
Days worked and missed
d)
Outcomes
Appendix A: Progress in Reading Recovery
Headline findings
Reading Recovery collects monitoring data for every teacher and child involved in the programme,
every year. The children offered Reading Recovery are the lowest attaining in literacy in their class,
identified by detailed assessment.
Children served: Almost 12,500 children were served by Reading Recovery across the UK and
Republic of Ireland in 2012-13, taught by nearly 1,200 teachers. A further 8,208 children received a
‘lighter touch’ intervention, supported by the Reading Recovery teacher, meaning that the
programme reached more than 20,000 children in all. However, this meant that nearly 2,500 fewer
children received Reading Recovery this year, a drop of around 16% on the previous year.
Outcomes: More than five in every six children (84%) who completed Reading Recovery in 201213 were lifted to age-appropriate levels of literacy, an increase of two percentage points on the
previous year in spite of schools’ concerns about funding Reading Recovery this year.
Reading gains: Children identified for Reading Recovery were non-readers, even after three terms
at school, but those who achieved accelerated progress (84% of completed programmes) reached
an average reading age of six years 10 months. This represented a gain of 21 months during the
four or five months of their series of lessons, about five times the normal rate of progress. Children
who did not make accelerated progress (16% of completed programmes), nevertheless made
progress, achieving an average reading age of six years one month, a gain of 12 months reading
age in 19 weeks.
Special Educational Needs: Following Reading Recovery 1,558 children could be removed from
the SEN register, whilst 84 children could be identified early as requiring formal assessment
(allocated resource hours in Ireland).
Programme length: Children progressed from being the lowest attaining children to achieving
age-appropriate levels of literacy in 71 lessons on average; just 35 and a half hours of teaching.
This was slightly shorter than the previous year (36 hours across 72 lessons), suggesting
improved efficiency.
Key Stage One National Assessments: In England, almost nine in 10 (89%) of those children
who had made accelerated progress in Reading Recovery went on to attain Level 2 or above in
their Key Stage One National Assessments for reading, and three out of four (75%) achieved the
same in the Writing Assessment. This was a welcome improvement on the previous year (88% and
74% respectively), providing evidence of consistent impact on standards.
Key Stage Two National Assessments: The children identified for Reading Recovery are those
most likely to fail to reach Level 3 at the end of Key Stage Two, aged 11. Nevertheless, of the 1,218
children reported who completed Reading Recovery at age six, six years previously, 94% attained
Level 3 or above in reading, and 74% attained Level 4 or above. This included those who had not
achieved the goals of the programme previously. In writing, 95% achieved Level 3 or above and
65% achieved Level 4 or above. Of those children who had achieved accelerated progress in
Reading Recovery at age six, all but 22 attained Level 3 or above in reading (98%), and more than
eight out of 10 (82%) attained Level 4 or above. All but 17 attained Level 3 or above in writing
(98%), and three quarters (74%) attained Level 4 or above. It is worth repeating that these were the
children who, at age five or six, were on track to fail to achieve Level 3 in their Key Stage Two
National Assessments.
Closing the attainment gap: Economically disadvantaged children made up 48% of the 2012-13
Reading Recovery cohort, compared with 21% nationally. Five out of six (83%) of these children
reached age-related expectations for literacy, alongside 85% of their more advantaged peers.
Following Reading Recovery, children in poverty had moved from being more than twice as likely to
be among the lowest attaining, to being within two percentage points of their peers. At Key Stage
Two National Assessments the attainment of economically disadvantaged children and their peers
remained close, with 80% and 84% respectively of children who had achieved the goals of Reading
Recovery at age six, going on to reach Level 4 or above in the Reading Assessment, whilst 71%
and 75% respectively attained the same in writing.
Almost two in every three of the lowest attaining children in Reading Recovery were boys, but 83%
of boys, alongside 85% of girls, were lifted to national expectations for literacy, again closing the
attainment gap. At Key Stage Two National Assessments too, the attainment gap was virtually
undetectable for these discontinued children, with 81% of boys and 83% of girls attaining Level 4 or
above in the Reading Assessment, and 72% and 76% respectively, achieving the same in Writing.
Schools: The programme operated in 125 local authorities or districts, through 1,569 schools. Of
these 361 were in Ireland, and 1,207 were in England. Just one school was offering Reading
Recovery in Wales during 2012-13, and there was no access to Reading Recovery in Northern
Ireland or Scotland.
Teachers: Around one in six teachers (18%) were in training during the data year 2012-13, and a
further 179 teachers (11%) were in their first year after training. More than a quarter of all the
teachers in training (28%) were working in Irish schools.
Experienced teachers completed more children’s programmes, on average, than teachers in
training, but those learning to teach Reading Recovery for the first time were able to solve the
problems of a slightly higher proportion of children than their more experienced colleagues, with
87% and 83% of programmes discontinued, respectively.
Teacher leaders: The implementation was served by 72 teacher leaders, a slight reduction on last
year, but included four new teacher leaders trained during the year.
Introduction
Reading Recovery™ is a short-term intervention for children who have the lowest achievement in
literacy learning in their first years at school. Children are taught individually by a specially trained
teacher for 30 minutes each day for an average of 12-20 weeks. The goal is for children to
develop effective reading and writing strategies in order to work within an average range of
classroom performance.
Reading Recovery is an early intervention. Proficient readers and writers develop early. Once
children begin to fail, opportunities for them to regain normal progress among their peers become
more difficult and more costly to achieve. There is strong evidence that school failure leads to lack
of self-esteem, diminished confidence, school dropout, and other negative outcomes. There is an
educational, financial and moral imperative to direct resources to the prevention of reading failure.
Reading Recovery has a strong track record and substantial independent research evidence as an
efficient and effective means of overcoming literacy difficulties for many children, especially those
most at risk of failure, such as children in poverty, children with limited control of English and those
who have made the least progress in their pre-school and early school experience.
The key to the successful implementation of Reading Recovery is in the model of training. Three
levels of professional staffing provide a stable training structure: university based trainers who train
and support teacher leaders; local level teacher leaders working at local level, who train and
support teachers; and school-based teachers who work with the hardest-to-teach children.
The Initial Professional Development course for training Reading Recovery teachers is part-time, for
one academic year, during which the teacher works with low attaining children in their school.
Teachers become sensitive observers of children’s reading and writing behaviours and expert in
making moment-by-moment teaching decisions based on a deep understanding of how children
think and learn about reading and writing, and how to overcome the barriers to their learning.
Following the initial year of training, teachers attend the Continuing Professional Development
course to fine-tune their practice and engage in high level professional investigations of teaching
and learning. They continue to teach for their colleagues and to discuss their professional decision
making. Continuing professional development sessions provide collaborative opportunities for
teachers to remain responsive to individual children, to question the effectiveness of their practices,
to get help from peers on particularly hard-to-teach children, and to consider how new knowledge in
the field may influence their practice.
Reading Recovery is not an isolated phenomenon in schools. It has a carefully designed plan for
implementation into existing systems. The success of any intervention such as Reading Recovery is
influenced by the quality of the decisions made about implementation. For more information about
implementation see ‘Standards & Guidelines: For the implementation of Reading Recovery in
Europe’ (European Centre for Reading Recovery, 2012).
Reading Recovery is one of the most carefully monitored initiatives in education today. Since 1994,
routine annual monitoring has documented outcomes for all children served in Reading Recovery.
Consistent outcomes have been shown for children across the UK and Republic of Ireland with a
large majority of children who completed the programme reaching age appropriate levels of literacy.
This is supported by independent research evidence which also indicates that the effects of
Reading Recovery are long lasting.
This report represents an examination of Reading Recovery pupil outcomes for the UK and the
Republic of Ireland 2012-13 implementations. It includes data for all pupils receiving Reading
Recovery across England (including Jersey and Guernsey), Wales and the Republic of Ireland.
Attention is given to implementation factors that may be supporting or hindering the success of the
intervention within the site.
The report responds to a need to be accountable for all educational programmes available to
children across the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Reading Recovery teachers are a valuable
resource in a school. Many also work as learning-support teachers in designated areas of
educational disadvantage, enabling schools to capitalise on the professional development provided
to Reading Recovery teachers, to advise, mentor and support others in the school with
responsibilities for children's literacy, including class teachers, teaching assistants and parents
through lighter touch interventions. The report provides numbers of children supported in a range of
these other interventions.
The information was collected as a part of the European Centre for Reading Recovery annual
monitoring procedure. Further information about Reading Recovery is available, please visit
http://readingrecovery.ioe.ac.uk or email readrec@ioe.ac.uk.
Questions for evaluation
1. How many children were involved in Reading Recovery and which children were they?
a) Size of implementation
b) Characteristics of the cohort
2. What were the programme outcomes for Reading Recovery children?
a) Programme outcomes
b) Disaggregated outcomes
c) Length of programmes
3. What were the literacy levels of children in the Reading Recovery programme?
4. Where were Reading Recovery children placed in a register of Special Educational Need
at the beginning of their programme, and following their programme?
5. What progress did children make after Reading Recovery?
a) Accelerated progress (discontinued)
b) Progress (referred)
6. What were the results of National Assessments for Reading Recovery children (England
only)?
a) Key Stage One National Assessments
b) Key Stage Two National Assessments
7. What was the efficiency of the Reading Recovery implementation?
a) Experience
b) Teacher responsibilities
c) Days worked and missed
d) Outcomes
1: How many children were supported by the Reading Recovery teacher and
which children were they?
Reading Recovery is designed to meet the needs of the lowest attaining children in literacy. The
expertise of the Reading Recovery teacher can also be utilised to support lighter touch interventions
for children with less complex literacy difficulties. Table 1.1 shows the number of children supported
by the Reading Recovery teacher through Reading Recovery or other interventions.
a) Size of implementation
Table 1.1 – Number of children served: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Programme/ Intervention Name
Number of Children Served
Reading Recovery
12,450
Better Reading Partners (BRP)
5,609
Fischer Family Trust (FFT)
1,059
Other
815
Talking Partners
307
RR-led Intervention
243
Early Literacy Support (ELS)
156
Special
19
Total
20,658
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
12,450 children were served in Reading Recovery across the Republic of Ireland, England, Wales,
Guernsey and Jersey (Table 1.1). They were taught by over 1,600 teachers (Table 1.2). A further
8,208 children received a ‘lighter touch’ intervention supported by the Reading Recovery teacher as
part of the Every Child a Reader (ECaR) programme in England, or in a Reading Recovery-led
intervention in the Republic of Ireland (Table 1.1).
Table 1.2 – Size of the Reading Recovery implementation across the UK and the Republic of
Ireland, 2012-13.
Teachers in training
Region
Children Served
All teachers
Number
Percentage
England
9,631
1,194
216
8.1
Republic of Ireland
2,810
442
85
19.2
Wales
9
1
1
100
Whole implementation
12,450
1,637
302
18.4
Note: This table excludes teacher leaders and teacher leaders in training.
Note: England includes the Channel Islands, Jersey and Guernsey.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
There were around 200 fewer Reading Recovery teachers in 2012-13 (Table 1.2) than in the
previous year. However, the number of new teachers coming forward for training more than
doubled in England, from 103 in 2012 to 216 this year, suggesting a growing optimism in schools. In
Ireland there was a slight reduction in the number of teachers in training, from 112 to 85, but this
can be accounted for by the short-term absence of a teacher leader on maternity leave.
Further discussion of the teacher implementation is available in Section 7.
Table 1.3 – Size of the Reading Recovery implementation across the UK and the Republic of
Ireland, 2007-13.
Region
2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07
England
9,631
11,911
21,075
14,961
9,610
5,276
2,893
Republic of Ireland
2,810
3,017
2,946
2,430
2,176
1,628
1,062
Wales
9
8
79
132
170
202
275
Northern Ireland
0
0
7
5
13
625
1,023
Whole implementation 12,450
14,936
24,107
17,528
11,969
7,731
5,253
Note: England includes the Channel Islands, Jersey and Guernsey.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2006-07; 2007-08; 2008-09; 2009-10; 201011; 2011-12; 2012-13.
The number of children served has continued to decline since changes in financial arrangements
were introduced in England in 2011-12, with a further drop of around 16% this year (Table 1.3).
However, this is a much smaller decline than noted in the previous year when around 40% of
Reading Recovery places were lost. So, this may serve to indicate a stabilising of provision in more
established areas of the implementation.
In Ireland, the number of children served in Reading Recovery has also dipped slightly; around 200
fewer children received support in this academic year. Although small, this marks the first
contraction in Ireland since 2006-07, in spite of severe economic challenges.
The proportion of Irish children across the whole implementation continues to grow, now accounting
for almost 23% of the total number of children taught in Reading Recovery.
Table 1.4 – Reading Recovery implementation information: The UK and the Republic of
Ireland, 2012-13.
Number of LAs served
125
Number of schools served
1,569
Number of teacher leaders
Trained
In training
72
68
4
Number of teachers
Trained
In training
1,637
1,335
302
Note: The teacher numbers do not include teacher leaders and teacher leaders in training.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Reading Recovery is widespread across the UK and Ireland, serving 125 local authorities/counties
and over 1,500 schools from 59 regional centres (Table 1.4). There were 67 regional centres in
2011-12, indicating that eight have closed this year, but as neighbouring teacher leaders were able
to provide support for areas unable to provide their own teacher leader, access to Reading
Recovery by local authorities in England was only reduced by two. The number of centres remained
stable in Ireland.
There were 206 fewer schools across the whole implementation, which was a drop of about 12%
from the previous year. Whilst the number of schools is fewer, the relatively small reduction could
be indicative of the implementation re-stabilising following the more substantial contraction in 201112, when schools cited budget restraints as their reason for withdrawing from the programme.
Around one in six teachers (18%) were in training during the data year 2012-13, and a further 179
teachers (11%) were in their first year after training. More than a quarter of all the teachers in
training (28%) were working in Irish schools.
Seventy-two teacher leaders operated across the whole implementation in 2012-13, just seven
fewer than in the previous year, but this figure included four new teacher leaders who were trained
in the UK during the year.
All experienced teacher leaders had been working for at least two years in the field with almost twothirds (63%) having four or more years of experience. The majority (77%) of teachers were working
with highly experienced teacher leaders who had been in the role for at least four years. Ireland had
one fewer teacher leader (down to nine from 10), and this slight reduction in capacity could explain
the drop in children supported by Reading Recovery in Ireland this year.
b) Characteristics of the cohort
Year group
Children are normally identified and selected for Reading Recovery between the ages of five years
nine months and six years three months, after a full year of formal tuition at school. Local
conditions, e.g. admission policies or national assessments, may influence the targeting of
resources towards first or second year pupils (Year One and Year Two children in England and
Wales; Senior Infants and First Class children in Ireland) and account is taken of date of birth to
ensure that summer born children are not excluded.
Gender
Children are selected for Reading Recovery based on literacy levels, with the lowest attaining given
the first priority. Nationally, a slightly higher proportion of boys are selected for Reading Recovery.
This suggests that factors which affect boys’ literacy, causing them to be more likely to get into
difficulties, emerge early and continue to exist despite improvements in literacy teaching in schools.
Ethnicity
Data on children's ethnicity is based on the UK national census. These categories have changed
slightly in response to national demographic changes, for example to monitor support for increasing
numbers of children from Eastern European backgrounds.
First language
Approximately 5% of the entire primary school population speaks English as an additional
language. Among Reading Recovery children this statistic varies considerably across regions and
the extent of their control of English language is also very variable.
Economic status
Economic status is recorded in different ways across the implementation. In Ireland, the most recent
available statistics indicate that one child in six (over 205,000) was at risk of poverty (Central
Statistics Office, 2010) 1. Reading Recovery has been effectively targeted to address the needs of
children in poverty, with a high percentage of Reading Recovery children taught in schools which
fell into the ‘disadvantaged’ category.
In England, entitlement to free school meals (FSM) offers an indicator of economic deprivation.
Research has shown persistent links between economic deprivation and literacy difficulties. In the
1
Central Statistics Office (2010), Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) 2009. Dublin Ireland: Stationery
Office.
general population, approximately 21% 2 of children are entitled to free school meals. Schools
receive additional funding (the ‘Pupil Premium’, currently £900 per pupil) 3 for children receiving free
school meals. This is one of the means by which schools in England fund intervention.
Special cohort group
Certain groups of children have been shown to be vulnerable to academic underachievement,
including children of travellers, children of asylum seekers or refugees, and 'looked after' children
(or children in the care of the local authorities).
Season of birth
Concerns have been expressed about the lower attainment of children born in the summer, and that
these children appear to remain disadvantaged throughout their subsequent schooling. For the
purpose of this report, season has been designated in line with school terms: • Autumn: September to December inclusive
• Spring: January to April inclusive
• Summer: May to August inclusive
Table 1.5 – Characteristics of all children participating in Reading Recovery at entry to the
programme and, separately, of those who completed the programme: The UK and the
Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Cohort Description
All children
All Programmes
Number
Percentage
12,450
100
Completed Programmes
Number
Percentage
9,185
100
Year group
Year One/ Senior Infants
Year Two/ First Class
Year Three/ Second Class
Not recorded
8,167
4,186
74
23
65.6
33.6
0.6
0.2
5,371
3,760
48
6
58.5
40.9
0.5
0.1
Programme started
This year
Last year
Not recorded
9,801
2,555
94
78.7
20.5
0.8
6,880
2,304
1
74.9
25.1
0
7,495
4,950
5
60.2
39.8
0
5,533
3,651
1
60.2
39.7
0
Economic status
Disadvantaged/ FSM
Not disadvantaged/ No FSM
Not recorded
5,933
6,385
132
47.7
51.3
1.1
4,294
4,799
92
46.8
52.2
1
First language
English
Other
Not recorded
9,783
2,665
2
78.6
21.4
0
7,197
1,987
1
78.4
21.6
0
Gender
Male
Female
Not recorded
Special cohort group
2
Source: DfE (2012) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupils-not-claiming-free-school-meals [last accessed
15.05.13]
3
Source: DfE (2013) http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/premium/a0076063/pp [last accessed 15.05.13]
No
Traveller child
'Looked after' child
Other special group
Not appropriate/ Not recorded
Asylum seeker or refugee child
Ethnicity
White
White British
Irish
Eastern European
Traveller of Irish Heritage
Any Other White background
Mixed
White and Black Caribbean
White and Asian
White and Black African
Any Other Mixed background
Asian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Indian
Any Other Asian background
Black
African
Caribbean
Any Other Black background
Chinese
Other Ethnic Group
Not Known
11,694
264
193
154
111
34
93.9
2.1
1.6
1.2
0.9
0.3
8,679
167
131
111
75
22
94.5
1.8
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.2
9,367
5,971
2,361
595
1
439
659
252
114
90
203
1,216
491
273
213
239
922
504
230
188
29
199
58
75.2
48
19
4.8
0
3.5
5.3
2
0.9
0.7
1.6
9.8
3.9
2.2
1.7
1.9
7.4
4
1.8
1.5
0.2
1.6
0.5
6,859
4,428
1,687
415
1
328
472
178
80
61
153
948
380
218
166
184
684
374
179
131
24
149
49
74.7
48.2
18.4
4.5
0
3.6
5.1
1.9
0.9
0.7
1.7
10.3
4.1
2.4
1.8
2
7.4
4.1
1.9
1.4
0.3
1.6
0.5
Season of birth
Autumn
4,146
33.3
3,419
37.2
Spring
3,944
31.7
2,791
30.4
Summer
4,337
34.8
2,957
32.2
Not recorded
23
0.2
18
0.2
Note: “All Programmes” includes every child served by Reading Recovery in 2012-13, whereas “Completed
Programmes” includes just those children whose programmes actually completed their lesson series during 2012-13.
Children who did not complete in 2012-13 are expected to do so in 2013-14.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Year group: Two thirds of all children are identified for Reading Recovery in their first year of formal
schooling (aged five to six). In the UK, seven out of 10 children (70%) were in Year One and in
Ireland just over half (51%) were in Senior Infants (Table 1.5). Approximately three in five (58%) of
the older children in the programme, had started their series of lessons in the previous year.
Programme started: One in five (20%) of the 2012-13 cohort had been identified for Reading
Recovery in the previous year and had been carried over to complete their series of lessons early in
the autumn term. This indicates a continued reduction on previous years (24% in 2011-12, and 28%
in 2010-11), and therefore could suggest teachers increasingly striving to complete lessons within
the academic year, in order to avoid carrying children over the long summer break. This could attest
a more efficient implementation, enabling children to complete more quickly, as is seen in
Table 2.3.
Gender: Boys outnumbered girls among the lowest attaining children by approximately
three to two (Table 1.5). This figure remains consistent with previous years and across
different implementations.
Children in poverty: Nearly half of the children (48%) in Reading Recovery came from
economically disadvantaged homes, on a par with findings in 2011-12. This is a very high
proportion compared with the distribution of such children in the general population (21%). These
figures indicate, therefore, that poor children are more than twice as likely to be the lowest attaining
in their age group and thus identified for Reading Recovery. However, it also indicates that a large
percentage of children who are not recognised as disadvantaged on current measures may have
serious literacy issues.
Ethnicity and language: Just over one in five children (21%) receiving Reading Recovery were
learning English as an additional language, another figure which remains consistent with the
previous year’s findings, although with regional differences. Two thirds (67%) of children came from
White British or Irish backgrounds, again consistent with 2011-12, but with regional variations.
White Irish children account for more than eight out of 10 (82%) of the cohort in the Republic of
Ireland, whilst in the UK White British children account for 62%, still the largest sub-group. The
largest ethnic minority group identified this year is that of Eastern European children, comprising
5% of the whole cohort at around 600 children. Pakistani and Black African children were the next
largest groups at 4% each.
Special cohort groups: Around 6% of the Reading Recovery cohort (756 children) were identified
as belonging to special cohort groups, which include children in the care of local authorities,
traveller children and refugee children. Traveller children and looked-after children remained around
2% of the cohort. The number of children identified as being asylum seekers or refugees also
mirrored the previous year’s cohort, forming just 0.3% (34 children) across the UK and Republic
of Ireland.
Seasons of birth: Findings generally indicate an equal percentage of children identified across all
three terms, with a slightly higher percentage of summer-born children. This finding does serve to
allay concerns that summer-born children were in danger of being further disadvantaged by missing
out on Reading Recovery. However, summer-born children did account for 44% of those with ongoing programmes at the point of data collection in 2013. This could be an issue as, statistically,
children who complete their Reading Recovery lessons in the first year are more likely to achieve
the aims of the programme than those carried over into a second year. This year, 80% of carry-over
children had reached age-related expectations in attainment compared to 85% of children who
completed Reading Recovery within the year.
Table 2.2 and the subsequent discussion will consider the outcomes for the different groups of
children with completed programmes.
2: What were the programme outcomes for Reading Recovery children?
a) Programme outcomes
There were five possible outcomes for children who received Reading Recovery. Every child who
receives Reading Recovery within the year is recorded here.1. Accelerated Progress (Discontinued): These children have made sufficient progress in literacy
learning, within the time available, to catch up with the average band for their class, and have
been judged to be likely to continue learning at the same rate as their peers without the need for
further special support
2. Progress (Referred): The children have made progress, but have not reached the average band
in literacy and will continue to need additional support
3. Ongoing: These children started the programme late in the school year, and have not yet
completed it, but will do so in the new school year
4. Left: These children left the school part way through their programme
5. Incomplete: These children were part way through their series of lessons when the programme
had to be suspended (e.g. because of funding withdrawal)
Table 2.1 – Programme outcomes for children receiving Reading Recovery: The UK and the
Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
All Programmes
Completed Programmes
Outcome
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Accelerated progress (Discontinued)
7,722
62
7,722
84.1
Progress (Referred)
1,463
11.8
1,463
15.9
Ongoing
2,373
19.1
Incomplete
616
4.9
Left
276
2.2
Note: “All Programmes” includes every child entering Reading Recovery in 2012-13, whereas “Completed
Programmes” includes just those children whose programmes actually completed their lesson series during 2012-13.
Children who did not complete in 2012-13 are expected to do so in 2013-14.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
In 2012-13, more than five in every six children (84%) who completed Reading Recovery were lifted
to age-appropriate levels of literacy (Table 2.1). This is a small, but very welcome improvement on
last year's outcome (82%), despite schools’ concerns about funding Reading Recovery. It also
serves to maintain the consistently high levels of success attained since the introduction of Reading
Recovery to the UK and Ireland (Figure 2.1).
Reading Recovery teachers work with the lowest attaining children in areas with high levels of
disadvantage, and the success criteria in Reading Recovery are very demanding (see Section 3).
Therefore, this sustained record of success year-on-year is a tremendous achievement and
testament to the efforts of schools, teachers and children. In the face of all the financial challenges
and uncertainties across the regions, the quality of the implementation is not only sustaining, but
improving outcomes for the children it serves.
The number of incomplete lesson series has remained stable at around 5%, adding weight to the
impression of greater stability in the implementation (Table 1.2).
A slightly smaller percentage of children (1% down on last year) were identified as on-going. They
were part way through their programme at the end of summer term 2013 (see discussion following
Table 1.5). These children will complete their series of lessons in the coming year.
Figure 2.1 – Proportion of children with completed programmes, achieving accelerated
progress, over the last twenty years: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 1994-2013.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 1993-94; 1994-95; 1995-96; 1996-97; 199798; 1998-99; 1999-00; 2000-01; 2001-02; 2002-03; 2003-04; 2004-05; 2005-06; 2006-07; 2007-08; 2008-09; 2009-10;
2010-11; 2011-12; 2012-13.
b) Disaggregated outcomes
Table 2.2 – Characteristics of all children with completed programmes, and their outcomes:
The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Cohort Description
Children
Number
%
No. of
Lessons
Entry
Exit
Book Level
3 Months
6 Months
% Accelerated
Progress
All children
9,185
100
71.3
1.7
16.1
17.6
19.5
84.1
Year group
Year One/ Senior Infants
Year Two/ First Class
Year Three/ Second Class
Not recorded
5,371
3,760
48
6
58.5
40.9
0.5
0.1
68.5
75.3
82.5
63.3
1.5
2.1
2.8
3.2
15.3
17.1
18.6
15
16.5
18.4
19.3
16
18.2
19.7
20.7
20
84.7
83.1
89.6
66.7
5,533
3,651
1
60.2
39.7
0
71.7
70.8
43
1.6
1.9
6
16
16.2
17
17.5
17.7
16
19.3
19.7
20
83.3
85.3
100
Economic status
Disadvantaged/ FSM
Not disadvantaged/ No FSM
Not recorded
4,294
4,799
92
46.8
52.2
1
72.1
70.6
72.6
1.6
1.8
2.5
15.9
16.2
15.7
17.4
17.8
16.6
19.1
19.8
18.5
82.7
85.4
80.5
First language
English
Other
Not recorded
7,197
1,987
1
78.4
21.6
0
71.5
70.9
43
1.7
1.7
6
16.1
16.1
17
17.6
17.7
16
19.4
19.6
20
83.6
85.8
100
Special cohort group
No
Traveller child
'Looked after' child
Other special group
Not appropriate/ Not recorded
Asylum seeker or refugee child
8,679
167
131
111
75
22
94.5
1.8
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.2
71.2
77.9
72.2
75.3
72.7
638
1.7
1.2
1.4
1.5
2
1.5
16.2
14.7
14.8
15.1
4
15
17.7
15.8
15.8
15.5
16.4
16.8
19.5
17.8
19.1
17.9
17.6
20
84.8
72.5
71.8
70.3
68
77.3
6,859
4,428
1,687
415
1
328
472
178
80
61
153
948
380
218
166
184
684
374
179
131
24
149
49
74.7
48.2
18.4
4.5
0
3.6
5.1
1.9
0.9
0.7
1.7
10.3
4.1
2.4
1.8
2
7.4
4.1
1.9
1.4
0.3
1.6
0.5
71.7
70.8
73.6
73.1
104
72
71
71.7
70.1
72.9
69.8
69
68.7
66.7
70.9
70.9
71.2
71.9
71.1
69.2
71
71.5
74.6
1.7
1.6
2.1
1.8
1
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.5
2.1
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.5
16.1
15.4
17.9
16.5
17
15.6
15.8
15.5
16.6
16
15.7
15.9
15.7
15.9
16.2
16.1
16.3
16.6
15.8
16.5
15.2
15.7
16.5
17.6
16.9
19.5
18.2
18
16.8
17
16.3
18.1
17.2
17.1
17.5
17.2
17.7
18
17.7
18
18.4
17.1
17.9
17.3
17
18.4
19.5
18.6
21.6
20.2
19
18.8
19.1
17.4
22.5
20.2
19.5
19.3
19
18.8
20.4
19.7
20.1
20.5
19.5
20
17.7
17.8
18.6
84.4
79.6
94.5
85.8
100
79
82.8
80.3
93
80.3
81.7
86
84.2
87.6
88
85.9
88
88.8
84.9
90.1
79.2
82.6
79.6
Gender
Male
Female
Not recorded
Ethnicity
White
White British
Irish
Eastern European
Traveller of Irish Heritage
Any Other White background
Mixed
White and Black Caribbean
White and Asian
White and Black African
Any Other Mixed background
Asian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Indian
Any Other Asian background
Black
African
Caribbean
Any Other Black background
Chinese
Other Ethnic Group
Not Known
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
The achievement gap between boys and girls was evident at entry, with boys representing 60% of
children identified as the least able in their year group, and therefore eligible for Reading Recovery
(Table 1.5). At the end of their lesson series, the gap was closing. Boys attained within two
percentage points of girls, as 83% and 85% respectively were lifted to national expectations for
literacy (Table 2.2). This represented a two percentage increase in the number of boys achieving
accelerated progress, compared with 2011-12.
Similarly, the gap in attainment for economically disadvantaged children was closing. In 2012-13,
from being more than twice as likely to be amongst the lowest attaining children, five out of six
(83%) of these economically disadvantaged children reached age-related expectations for literacy
alongside 85% of their more advantaged peers. This has been a year-on-year improvement.
This year, there was little difference between outcomes for children whose first language was not
English and their English first language peers, with 86% and 84% discontinuing respectively.
Children from different ethnic groups achieved a rate of accelerated progress on a par with their
white peers. Nearly 700 black children completed their programmes, and of these, almost nine out
of 10 (88%) made accelerated gains and were working at age-related expectations for their age
group. The risks of underachievement by Afro-Caribbean pupils are well-documented (for example,
by the Rowntree Foundation, 2007) but this trend is not evident in outcomes for black children at
the end of their Reading Recovery lessons.
Asian children accounted for 10% of the cohort, with around 1,200 children identified in this
category (Table 1.5). 86% of the Asian children who completed their Reading Recovery
programmes though, made accelerated progress (Table 2.2).
The special cohort group comprised just 5.5% of the children with completed programmes. Whilst
numbers are small, they are comparable with the findings in 2011-12. Seven out of 10 traveller
children who completed the programme reached age-related expectations, an increase over five
percentage points on previous year outcomes. However, of the 131 looked-after children, 72%
made accelerated progress compared with 82% in the previous year. These vulnerable children are
a concern nationally, and this will be worthy of more detailed investigation.
c) Length of programmes
Reading Recovery is a short term intervention, and there is an imperative for teachers to work
briskly. There is no prescribed length to children’s programmes although economics dictate that
programmes should be as short as possible, commensurate with robust outcomes.
Teachers tend to take a little longer to achieve their goals during the year of training and children
who start with very little in place may take longer to get under way.
Table 2.3 – Weeks and lessons of children completing Reading Recovery programmes,
sorted by programme outcome: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Outcome/ Time
Total Pupils
Mean
SD
Min.
Max.
Accelerated progress (Discontinued)
Weeks
Lessons
Lost Lessons
7,629
7,629
7,629
17.8
70.8
18.2
4.8
19.5
11.9
3
8
-80
35
170
130
Progress (Referred)
Weeks
Lessons
Lost Lessons
1,442
1,442
1,442
19.2
75.1
21
4.5
19
12.5
3
11
-17
35
140
100
Note: “Lost lessons” is the difference between the ideal number of lessons (total weeks × 5 lessons per week) and the
actual number of lessons.
Note: This table excludes children taught by teacher leaders and teacher leaders in training.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
In 2012-13, children progressed from being the lowest attaining children to achieving ageappropriate levels of literacy in 71 lessons on average; just 35 and a half hours of teaching (Table
2.3). This was slightly shorter than the previous year (36 hours across 72 lessons), suggesting
improved efficiency (see discussion following Table 1.5).
There was however a very slight increase in the average number of lost lessons this year. Though
the numbers are small, evidence shows that shorter series of lessons not only enable children to
return to age-appropriate performance in class more quickly, but they also allow teachers to serve
more children a year in Reading Recovery. Factors contributing to this slight rise should be
investigated at a local and regional level (see discussion following Table 7.4 for explanations behind
lost lessons).
Children who made some progress, but did not achieve accelerated learning were given around
one and a half weeks longer, bringing their average programme length to just over 19 weeks,
consistent with the previous year. The number of lost lessons is slightly higher for these children, on
average three more lessons missed, but this number is still smaller than in previous years.
Outcomes for referred children seem to indicate increased efficiency in identification and teacher
decision-making. This will be considered further in Sections 3 and 7.
3: What were the literacy levels of children in the Reading Recovery
programme?
Children selected for Reading Recovery are the lowest achieving in their class on six measures of
early literacy which together comprise the Observation Survey (Clay, 2002). These measures are
Book Level (captured by a running record of text reading), Letter Identification, Concepts about
Print, Word Reading Test, Writing Vocabulary and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words. In
addition, the British Abilities Scale Word Reading assessment is administered to provide an
external standardised assessment.
The programme is discontinued when children are judged to have an efficient reading and writing
process in place and to be operating within the average band for their class and age. Children who
do not achieve the accelerated progress required for the programme to be discontinued are referred
back to the school for longer-term support.
Children may start Reading Recovery at any point during their first or second year of schooling
(Year One or Year Two in England and Wales; Senior Infants or First Class in Ireland), and some
complete their lesson series in the following school year. The point at which a child completes their
lesson series will have a bearing on the literacy levels they need to reach.
Table 3.1 – Scores on Observation Survey tasks for Reading Recovery children with
completed programmes, at entry to and exit from, the programme: The UK and the Republic
of Ireland, 2012-13.
9,185
Book
Level
Mean
SD
1.7
2.2
Letter
Identification
Mean
SD
43.9
9.5
Concepts
about Print
Mean
SD
11.6
3.7
9,185
16.1
3.7
52.2
3.8
19.3
3.1
21
7,722
1,463
17.3
9.9
2.3
3.7
52.8
49.5
2.8
6.3
19.9
16.2
2.7
3.5
21.8
16.7
Assessment
Point
Total
Pupils
Entry
All completed
programmes
At discontinuing
At referral
Word
Test
Mean
SD
8.5
5.8
Writing
Vocabulary
Mean
SD
10.9
8.7
Mean
22.3
SD
9.8
BAS
Reading Age
Mean
5:1
3.3
37.4
15.7
34.5
4
6:10
1.9
5.3
39.8
24.3
15.1
11.9
35.3
30.3
2.4
7
6:10
6:1
HRSIW
Note: “HRSIW” is the Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words task.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Figure 3.1 – Book Level on programme entry, for children with completed programme
outcomes: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Children identified for Reading Recovery were effectively non-readers, even after three terms at
school, and when they started the programme they had learned very little about reading and writing
(Table 3.1). Assessments at entry to Reading Recovery indicate that some children have made
slightly more progress in learning literacy, but they are still considerably behind expectations for
children at this age: the average Book Level was only 1.7. A level one book is a short, predictable
text, with few words on a page, just one word changed on each page, and that changed word is
strongly indicated by the picture (see Appendix A). These are children who at the age of six have
yet to begin to read.
Figure 3.1 indicates that around three out of four children in the cohort (77%) were below Reading
Recovery Book Level three at programme entry. This reflects a reduction from last year’s 82%,
continuing a trend that indicates children are beginning Reading Recovery at slightly higher reading
levels. One child in 10 was reading at level four or above (3% higher than last year). There was also
a reduction of 4% in the number of children who entered Reading Recovery being unable to read
any published text; from 36% last year to 32% this year. This is the lowest figure since 2006 when
37% of children were unable to read any printed text. This could be indicative of a rise in literacy
levels in schools with more experienced Reading Recovery teachers who are knowledgeable about
teaching reading and are working to achieve wider impact on literacy across the school.
On the British Abilities Scales (BASII) measure of reading age, children at entry averaged five years
and one month, which is three months higher than in previous years (Table 3.1). This concurs with
upward progress in Book Level at entry, as noted above.
Children’s programmes are discontinued when the child is judged by an independent observer to be
able to read and write independently, within the average band for their class and age. Children who
made accelerated progress (84% of completed programmes) reached an average reading age of
six years 10 months on BASII. This represented a gain of 21 months during the four or five months
of their series of lessons, about five times the normal rate of progress. They were reading at Book
Level 17, having gained 15 text levels. This meant they were now able to read a story with
elaborated episodes and events, extended descriptions, some literary language, full pages of print,
more unusual and challenging vocabulary and less support from illustrations (see Appendix A).
Their writing vocabulary had increased from around 10 words to around 40 words written correctly
within a timed assessment.
Children who did not achieve the accelerated progress required for the programme to be
discontinued were referred back to the school for longer-term support. These children had,
nevertheless, made considerable progress, achieving an average reading age of six years one
month, a gain of 12 months reading age in 19 weeks. These children also reached Book Level 10,
slightly higher than in previous years (see Appendix A), and they increased their writing vocabulary
to around 24 words. Although still behind their peers, these children can no longer be considered
non-readers and writers.
Table 3.2 – Changes in average attainment in literacy prior to Reading Recovery, over the
last nine years: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 1994-2013.
Year
1994
1997
2000
2003
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Pupils
4,694
5,303
4,989
5,008
5,253
7,731
11,969
17,528
24,107
14,936
12,450
Book
Level
Letter
Identification
Concepts about
Print
Word
Test
Writing
Vocabulary
HRSIW
BAS
Reading Age
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.8
2
2.1
2.1
2
1.7
1.7
29
34.8
38.4
40.3
40.2
39.8
40.4
41.4
15.6
14.4
13.2
12.3
13.2
12.8
12.3
11.2
10.1
11.4
12.5
12.7
11.9
11.3
11
11
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
4
4.1
4
3.8
1.9
3.6
4.8
5.3
7
6.5
6.5
6.7
2.4*
3.1†
3.5‡
3.6‡
5.9‡
5.7‡
5.7‡
5.4
5.5
8.2
10.3
11.7
10.8
9.9
9.4
9.4
5.4
7.6
9.1
10
10.2
9.4
8.6
8.1
9.5
13.0
15.5
17.5
17.9
17.8
18.7
19.5
8.5
9.5
9.9
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.3
10.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4:10
4:10
4:10
4:10
1.2
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.9
2.2
41.9
43
43.9
10.7
10.1
9.5
11.1
11.4
11.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
7.1
7.7
8.5
5.5
5.6
5.8
9.4
10.3
10.9
7.8
8.2
8.7
20.1
21.5
22.3
10.1
9.7
9.8
4:10
4:10
5:1
Note: Using Clay (1993, 2002) An Observation Survey of Literacy Achievement .
Note: ‡ Using Duncan word reading ; *Clay word reading; + Canberra word reading.
Note: “HRSIW” is the Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words task.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 1993-94; 1994-95; 1995-96; 1996-97; 199798; 1998-99; 1999-00; 2000-01; 2001-02; 2002-03; 2003-04; 2004-05; 2005-06; 2006-07; 2007-08; 2008-09; 2009-10;
2010-11; 2011-12; 2012-13.
Slight increases in literacy at entry were observed in Table 3.1. Table 3.2 shows the breakdown of
changes in attainment on the different literacy tests. Continued increases in Letter Identification and
Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words scores over time are evident, as are improvements in
Concepts about Print scores, although this assessment still remains lower than in the years before
2007. This may provide further evidence of experienced teachers working to support literacy across
the school.
4: Where were Reading Recovery children placed in a register of Special
Educational Need at the beginning of their programme, and following their
programme?
Children who are struggling to learn literacy may be allocated to registers of Special Educational
Need, in a continuum according to the gravity of their need.
Placement on a continuum of Special Educational Need was recorded at the beginning of the child's
Reading Recovery programme, and again following the programme, in order to determine whether
the level of need had changed.
Table 4.1 – Changes in allocation to registers of Statement of Education Need, for children
with completed Reading Recovery programmes: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Assessment Point
Total
Pupils
Not on SEN
Register
Number Percent
Lowest level on SEN Mid-level on SEN
register
register
Number
Percent Number Percent
Recommended for
Not Known
formal assessment
Number
Percent Number Percent
Completed Programmes
Before RR
After RR
9,185
9,185
4,356
5,882
47.4
64
3,347
2,163
36.4
23.5
1,359
901
14.8
9.8
111
195
1.2
2.1
12
44
0.1
0.5
Discontinued
Before RR
After RR
7,722
7,722
3,898
5,591
50.5
72.4
2,745
1,542
35.5
20
984
445
12.7
5.8
84
109
1.1
1.4
11
35
0.1
0.5
1,463
1,463
458
291
31.3
19.9
602
621
41.1
42.4
375
456
25.6
31.2
27
86
1.8
5.9
1
9
0.1
0.6
Referred
Before RR
After RR
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Following Reading Recovery, 1,558 children could be removed from the SEN register, representing
around 17% of those children who had completed the programme (Table 4.1). These children were
no longer deemed to have Special Educational Needs; something which indicates that Reading
Recovery can act as a mechanism for reducing the level of demand for SEN services.
Additionally, 84 children were identified early and recommended for formal assessment (allocated
resource hours in Ireland) during the course of their Reading Recovery programmes, emphasising
the role Reading Recovery can play in the early identification of children with severe Special
Educational Needs in mainstream education.
It is interesting that, of the children who were referred for additional support at the end of their
lesson series, almost one in five of them (20%) were nevertheless still reported as not identified on
the SEN register, even after a period of intensive and individual teaching had proved insufficient to
address their specific and complex literacy needs. Children who did not demonstrate accelerated
gains in Reading Recovery nevertheless do make progress. In times of financial constraints, it may
be deemed more cost-effective for schools to direct funds to those children who are working below
these ex-Reading Recovery children. However, given the time and investment allocated to early
identification and support in getting these children under-way, schools may want to reconsider their
subsequent provision for these children.
Twenty five of the children who made accelerated progress and achieved age-related outcomes
were also recommended for formal assessment, following their Reading Recovery programmes.
Data regarding the nature of the SEN identified are not collected, but it is likely that these children
have complex needs beyond literacy; for example, behavioural or physical problems, and whilst
those concerns may not have been resolved, the evidence is that these need not be a barrier to
literacy. Further analysis at local level could identify the specific nature of the children who are
referred for additional specialist support and the scale of support provided, after Reading Recovery.
Figure 4.1 – Changes in allocation on registers of Statement of Education Need, for children
with completed Reading Recovery programmes: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
5: What progress did children make after Reading Recovery?
After the completion of their programme, children are carefully monitored as they adjust to the
withdrawal of daily intensive support. Some children may find their progress temporarily checked as
they make this adjustment.
a) Accelerated progress (discontinued)
Table 4.1 – Follow-up scores on Observation Survey tasks for children with discontinued
Reading Recovery programmes: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Book Level
Writing Vocabulary
BAS Reading Age
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
At discontinuing
12,861
17.2
2.2
39.9
15.2
6:10
3 month follow-up
8,229
18.6
3
44.8
17.1
7:1
6 month follow-up
5,682
20.3
3.4
50.5
19.1
7:4
Note: This group includes all children who had follow-up only testing in 2012-13 (i.e. those who completed their
programmes in 2011-12 and had testing this academic year, and those who completed early this year, allowing for
follow-up testing to also take place this year).
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Assessment Point
Total Pupils
Six months after the end of their series of lessons, children who had achieved the goals of Reading
Recovery (84% of completed programmes: Table 2.1) not only maintained the gains they had made
during their programme, but continued to progress at the rate of normal readers, gaining one month
in reading age every month (Table 5.1). These were children who had made very little progress in
literacy prior to Reading Recovery. Findings suggest that they had now acquired independent skills
for reading and writing. Children made progress gains of three Book Levels in six months,
consistent with the progress identified in 2011-12. The average six month follow-up Writing
Vocabulary scores for these children also rose. Discrepancies over time in sustaining progress may
serve to indicate the importance of tracking and monitoring children’s progress in their first months
following Reading Recovery. These children may still be at risk. Whatever circumstances caused
them to fall behind in reading initially may still be ongoing.
b) Progress (referred)
Table 4.2 – Follow-up scores on Observation Survey tasks for children with referred Reading
Recovery programmes: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Book Level
Writing Vocabulary
BAS Reading Age
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
At referral
2,334
9.6
3.8
23.4
11.7
5:10
3 month follow-up
1,415
10.2
4.4
26.3
12.9
6:1
6 month follow-up
940
11.4
4.5
30.1
14.6
6:4
Note: This group includes all children who had follow-up only testing in 2012-13 (i.e. those who completed their
programmes in 2011-12 and had testing this academic year, and those who completed early this year, allowing for
follow-up testing to also take place this year).
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Assessment Point
Total Pupils
Children who were referred for longer term support (16% of completed programmes: Table 2.1) also
maintained their gains in the six months following the end of one-to-one teaching (Table 5.2). These
children also demonstrated a normal rate of continuing progress, gaining one month in reading age
every month. These were children who had made almost no progress in literacy learning prior to
Reading Recovery suggesting that, whilst they had made insufficient progress to be deemed
independent readers and writers, they had nevertheless acquired literacy skills which will enable
them to continue to progress.
6: What were the results of National Assessments for Reading Recovery
children (England only)?
a) Key Stage One National Assessments
Children in England undergo continuing teacher assessment for reading and writing during their
time in Key Stage One. At the end of their second year of formal schooling (aged seven) the
assessments are collated and reported locally and nationally. The national prescribed target is
Level 2. Children identified for Reading Recovery are the lowest achieving in their class, and would
be predicted to reach Level 1 or below without the intervention.
Table 6.1 shows the impact for all children who received the programme, including those who did
not achieve the goals.
Table 6.1 – Key Stage One outcomes of Reading and Writing National Assessments for
Reading Recovery Children, sorted by programme outcome: England, 2012-13.
Programme Outcome/
Key Stage One Reading
Key Stage One Writing
National Assessment Level
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Discontinued
4,118
100
4,114
100
Below Level 1
1
0
9
0.2
1
452
11
1,023
24.9
2c
1,074
26.1
1,612
39.2
2b
1,734
42.1
1,228
29.8
2a
711
17.3
205
5
3
146
3.5
37
0.9
2+
3,665
89
3,082
74.9
2b+
2,591
62.9
1,470
35.7
All completed programmes
Below Level 1
1
2c
2b
2a
3
2+
2b+
5,083
35
1,069
1,285
1,822
726
146
3,979
2,694
100
0.7
21
25.3
35.8
14.3
2.9
78.3
53
5,078
97
1,669
1,792
1,273
209
38
3,312
1,520
100
1.9
32.9
35.3
25.1
4.1
0.7
65.2
29.9
Note: “All completed programmes” includes those children who made progress (referred) and made accelerated
progress (discontinued).
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Accelerated progress: The children who achieved accelerated progress in Reading Recovery
continued to demonstrate high attainment at Key Stage One National Assessments: almost nine
out of 10 children (89%) attained National Curriculum Level 2 or above in reading and three
quarters (75%) achieved the same in writing. Such sustained high outcomes continue to provide
evidence of impact on standards in Key Stage One.
All completed programmes: Almost eight in 10 children (78%) who completed their Reading
Recovery programmes, whether or not they had made accelerated progress, attained Level 2 or
above in their Key Stage One Reading National Assessments (Table 6.1). This is a 1% increase on
the reported outcomes for 2011-12 and, thus, demonstrates sustained, improving outcomes for
Reading Recovery children.
Similarly, 65% achieved the same in the Writing Assessment, compared with 63% last year. These
findings demonstrate the positive benefits of Reading Recovery up to a year later, not just for those
who made accelerated progress but also for those who were referred for longer-term support. The
year-on-year improvements in writing attainment are welcome. However, whilst attainment at Level
2b in writing has increased on the previous year by 3%, this is still a focus for improvement for
Reading Recovery teachers. The gap between reading and writing is a cause for concern in
Reading Recovery as well as nationally.
Data clearly indicate that Reading Recovery children are able to reach age-related expectations,
attesting to the effectiveness of Reading Recovery as an early literacy intervention.
Key Stage One National Assessment results are represented diagrammatically in Figures 6.1 to 6.4.
Figure 6.1 – Key Stage One outcomes of Reading National Assessments for Reading
Recovery children with completed programmes: England, 2012-13.
Note: “All completed programmes” includes those children who made progress (referred) and made accelerated
progress (discontinued).
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Figure 6.2 – Key Stage One outcomes of Writing National Assessments for Reading
Recovery children with completed programmes: England, 2012-13.
Note: “All completed programmes” includes those children who made progress (referred) and made accelerated
progress (discontinued).
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Figure 6.3 – Key Stage One outcomes of Reading National Assessments for Reading
Recovery children who made accelerated progress (discontinued): England, 2012-13.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Figure 6.4 – Key Stage One outcomes of Writing National Assessments for Reading
Recovery children who made accelerated progress (discontinued): England, 2012-13.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Table 6.2 shows the impact for all children who received the programme, including those who did
not achieve the goals. Table 6.3 shows the impact of achieving accelerated learning on closing the
attainment gap.
Table 6.2 – Key Stage One outcomes of Reading and Writing National Assessments for
Reading Recovery children with completed programme outcomes, sorted by background
characteristics: England, 2012-13.
Cohort Description
Key Stage One Reading
Level 2+
Level 2b+
Number %age Number
%age
Key Stage One Writing
Level 2+
Level 2b+
Number %age Number %age
Gender
Male
Female
2,367
1,611
77.4
79.6
1,583
1,110
51.8
54.8
1,891
1,420
61.9
70.2
815
704
26.7
34.8
First language
English
Other
2,893
1,085
76.7
83
1,935
759
51.3
58
2,347
965
62.2
73.9
1,045
475
27.7
36.4
1,644
76.4
1,081
50.2
1,353
63
580
27
2,287
79.7
1,589
55.3
1,919
66.9
923
32.2
3,816
53
49
21
78.8
82.8
70
44.7
2,598
37
23
16
53.6
57.8
32.9
34
3,179
41
45
17
65.7
64.1
64.3
36.2
1,472
22
14
5
30.4
34.4
20
10.6
7
70
3
30
5
50
1
10
Economic status
Disadvantaged / FSM
Not disadvantaged/
No FSM
Special cohort group
No
‘Looked after’ child
Other special group
Traveller child
Asylum seeker or
refugee child
Note: This table includes all Reading Recovery and Follow-up Only children who were in Year Two during 2012-13, had
completed programme outcomes, and who had Key Stage One SATs results provided.
Note: %age refers to the percentage of discontinued children in this group, who received these marks out of a total of
all those in the group with completed programmes and Key Stage One SATs results provided.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Table 6.3 – Key Stage One outcomes of Reading and Writing National Assessments for
Reading Recovery children with discontinued programme outcomes, sorted by background
characteristics: England, 2012-13.
Cohort Description
Key Stage One Reading
Level 2+
Level 2b+
Number %age Number
%age
Key Stage One Writing
Level 2+
Level 2b+
Number %age Number %age
Gender
Male
Female
2,168
1,496
88.7
89.4
1,526
1,064
62.5
63.6
1,746
1,335
71.6
79.8
788
681
32.3
40.7
First language
English
Other
2,660
1,005
88.7
89.8
1,861
730
62.1
65.2
2,183
899
72.8
80.6
1,015
455
33.9
40.8
Economic status
Disadvantaged / FSM
Not disadvantaged/
No FSM
1,490
88.1
1,031
61
1,244
73.7
556
32.9
2,132
89.7
1,536
64.6
1,800
75.8
897
37.8
Special cohort group
No
‘Looked after’ child
Other special group
Traveller child
Asylum seeker or
refugee child
3,520
46
44
20
89.1
88.5
89.8
80
2,948
37
21
15
74.7
71.2
42.9
60
2,962
39
37
15
75.1
75
75.5
60
1,423
22
13
5
36.1
42.3
26.5
20
6
85.7
3
42.9
5
71.4
1
14.3
Note: This table includes all Reading Recovery and Follow-up Only children who were in Year Two during 2012-13, had
discontinued programme outcomes, and who had Key Stage One SATs results provided.
Note: %age refers to the percentage of discontinued children in this group, who received these marks out of a total of
all those in the group with discontinued programmes and Key Stage One SATs results provided.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Tables 6.2 and 6.3 provide independent assessment evidence regarding the power of Reading
Recovery in closing the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers.
In 2012-13, the attainment gap between children in poverty and their more advantaged peers had
been substantively reduced. Among all those who completed Reading Recovery, 76% of those
entitled to free school meals and 80% of those not entitled achieved Level 2 or above in the
Reading Assessment, with 63% and 67% respectively achieving the same in the Writing
Assessment (Table 6.2). Given that these children were around 50% more likely to be amongst the
lowest attaining; this represents a remarkable change in their fortunes. When considering just those
children who achieved accelerated progress in Reading Recovery, the difference is negligible; 88%
of children deemed disadvantaged reached Level 2 in reading alongside 90% of their peers, and
74% achieved the same in writing, alongside 76% of their more advantaged peers (Table 6.3).
The gap between boys and girls at Key Stage One National Assessments was 8% in writing and
only 3% in reading (Table 6.2). For children who achieved accelerated progress, the gender gap in
reading had almost completely closed (Table 6.3).
Children who spoke English as an additional language were able to reach age-related expectations
at a slightly higher percentage than their English first language peers, with a percentage gap of 6%
in reading at Level 2, and of 12% in writing for all completed programmes (Table 6.2).
b) Key Stage Two National Assessments
In England, at the end of Key Stage Two, aged 11, children reach a second phase of formal
national assessments. The national expectation is for children to reach Level 4, deemed a strong
average. Level 3 is a low average. The children identified for Reading Recovery at the age of six
are those who, without intervention, are most likely to attain below Level 3 at age 11. Children
complete Reading Recovery at age six or seven. Their performance in national assessments at
age 11, five or six years after the end of their lessons is indicative of the long lasting effect of
the intervention.
Table 6.4 – Key Stage Two outcomes of Reading and Writing National Assessments for
Reading Recovery Children, sorted by programme outcome: England, 2012-13.
Programme Outcome/
Key Stage Two Reading
Key Stage Two Writing
National Assessment Level
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Discontinued
984
100
982
100
Below Level 2
10
1
1
0.1
2
12
1.2
16
1.6
3
155
15.8
243
24.7
4
629
63.9
653
66.5
5
178
18.1
69
7
3+
962
97.8
965
98.3
4+
807
82
722
73.5
All completed programmes
Below Level 2
2
3
4
5
3+
4+
1,218
25
45
243
717
188
1,148
905
100
2.1
3.7
20
58.9
15.4
94.3
74.3
1,218
8
55
358
725
72
1,155
797
100
0.7
4.5
29.4
59.5
5.9
94.8
65.4
Note: These children were in Reading Recovery during 2007-08 or 2008-09, and had discontinued/ completed
programmes. They were in Year Six during 2012-13, and so their Key Stage Two National Assessments were tracked
in order to report upon their post-Reading Recovery progress.
Note: “All completed programmes” includes those children who made progress (referred) and made accelerated
progress (discontinued).
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Accelerated progress: More than four out of five children (82%) who had achieved accelerated
progress in Reading Recovery at age six, five years previously, went on to attain National
Curriculum Level 4 or above in their Reading Assessment, and nearly three quarters (73.5%)
attained the same in writing (Table 6.4). Whilst these figures are slightly lower than those reported
last year (84% and 74% respectively), the sample size this year is much larger and more
representative, and therefore clearly indicative of sustained progress over time for a large number
of children who, prior to Reading Recovery, would have been predicted not to achieve Level 3.
Just as last year, nearly every child (98%) who had previously achieved accelerated progress in
their Reading Recovery programmes, went on to achieve Level 3 or higher in both their Reading
and Writing Key Stage Two National Assessments. This is in stark contrast to the national statistic
of around 32,000 children (6% of the age group) year-on-year, who fail to reach National Curriculum
Level 3 at age 11. This statistic has been stubbornly resistant to change. Expectations for the future
progress of these lowest attaining children have now been raised considerably by these favourable
outcomes after Reading Recovery.
The data clearly indicates that achieving the criteria for discontinuing from Reading Recovery at age
six is a protective factor ensuring success at Level 4 in Key Stage Two.
All completed programmes: Whether they attained accelerated progress or were referred for
further support, three out of four children (74%) achieved Level 4 or above in their Key Stage Two
Reading National Assessments, and 95% achieved Level 3 or above. Additionally, two thirds of
these children (65%) reached Level 4 or above in their Writing Assessment, and nearly all (95%)
attained Level 3 or above. This demonstrates that even children who had not made accelerated
progress during their Reading Recovery programmes, benefited in the long term.
Key Stage Two outcomes are represented diagrammatically in Figures 6.5 to 6.8, and Tables 6.5
and 6.6 consider the outcomes for different groups of children in Reading Recovery.
Figure 6.3 – Key Stage Two outcomes of Reading National Assessments for Reading
Recovery children with completed programmes: England, 2012-13.
Note: These children were in Reading Recovery during 2007-08 or 2008-09, and had completed programmes. They
were in Year Six during 2012-13, and so their Key Stage Two National Assessments were tracked in order to report
upon their post-Reading Recovery progress.
Note: “All completed programmes” includes those children who made progress (referred) and made accelerated
progress (discontinued).
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Figure 6.4 – Key Stage Two outcomes of Writing National Assessments for Reading
Recovery children with completed programmes: England, 2012-13.
Note: These children were in Reading Recovery during 2007-08 or 2008-09, and had completed programmes. They
were in Year Six during 2012-13, and so their Key Stage Two National Assessments were tracked in order to report
upon their post-Reading Recovery progress.
Note: “All completed programmes” includes those children who made progress (referred) and made accelerated
progress (discontinued).
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Figure 6.5 – Key Stage Two outcomes of Reading National Assessments for Reading
Recovery children with discontinued programmes: England, 2012-13.
Note: These children were in Reading Recovery during 2007-08 or 2008-09, and had discontinued programmes. They
were in Year Six during 2012-13, and so their Key Stage Two National Assessments were tracked in order to report
upon their post-Reading Recovery progress.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Figure 6.6 – Key Stage Two outcomes of Writing National Assessments for Reading
Recovery children with discontinued programmes: England, 2012-13.
Note: These children were in Reading Recovery during 2007-08 or 2008-09, and had discontinued programmes. They
were in Year Six during 2012-13, and so their Key Stage Two National Assessments were tracked in order to report
upon their post-Reading Recovery progress.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 show the power of Reading Recovery to close the attainment gap between
particular cohort groups, notably boys and children in poverty. Table 6.5 shows the impact on the
cohort as a whole, including those who did not reach age related expectations at the end of the
programme. Table 6.6 shows the impact on the children who achieved accelerated progress at five
or six years old.
Table 6.5 – Key Stage Two outcomes of Reading and Writing National Assessments for
Reading Recovery children with completed programme outcomes, sorted by background
characteristics: England, 2012-13.
Cohort Description
Key Stage Two Reading
Level 3+
Level 4+
Number %age Number
%age
Key Stage Two Writing
Level 3+
Level 4+
Number %age Number %age
Gender
Male
Female
687
461
93.1
96
541
364
73.3
75.8
700
455
94.2
95.8
472
325
63.5
68.4
First language
English
Other
773
375
93.2
96.4
601
304
72.5
78.1
778
377
93.6
97.4
515
282
62
72.9
520
93.5
390
70.1
524
94.1
343
61.6
619
94.8
508
77.8
622
95.4
447
68.6
1,091
8
26
4
94.7
80
89.7
57.1
867
4
20
3
75.3
40
69
42.9
1,096
8
27
6
95.1
80
93.1
85.7
759
3
20
3
65.9
30
69
42.9
5
100
5
100
5
100
5
100
Economic status
Disadvantaged / FSM
Not disadvantaged/
No FSM
Special cohort group
No
‘Looked after’ child
Other special group
Traveller child
Asylum seeker or
refugee child
Note: These children were in Reading Recovery during 2007-08 or 2008-09, and had completed programmes. They
were in Year Six during 2012-13, and so their Key Stage Two National Assessments were tracked in order to report
upon their post-Reading Recovery progress.
Note: %age refers to the percentage of discontinued children in this group, who received these marks out of a total of
all those in the group with completed programmes and Key Stage Two SATs results provided.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Table 6.6 – Key Stage Two outcomes of Reading and Writing National Assessments for
Reading Recovery children with discontinued programme outcomes, sorted by background
characteristics: England, 2012-13.
Cohort Description
Key Stage Two Reading
Level 3+
Level 4+
Number %age Number
%age
Key Stage Two Writing
Level 3+
Level 4+
Number %age Number %age
Gender
Male
Female
569
393
96.6
99.5
478
329
81.2
83.3
579
386
97.6
99.2
428
294
72.2
75.6
First language
English
Other
638
324
97.4
98.5
531
276
81.1
83.9
640
325
97.4
99.1
468
254
71.2
77.4
Economic status
Disadvantaged / FSM
Not disadvantaged/
No FSM
429
97.9
349
79.7
428
97.9
310
70.9
526
97.6
452
83.9
530
98.5
405
75.3
Special cohort group
No
‘Looked after’ child
Other special group
Traveller child
Asylum seeker or
refugee child
919
4
23
4
97.9
100
92
100
773
4
18
3
82.3
100
72
75
922
4
23
4
98.5
100
92
100
690
2
19
3
73.7
50
76
75
3
100
3
100
3
100
3
100
Note: These children were in Reading Recovery during 2007-08 or 2008-09, and had discontinued programmes. They
were in Year Six during 2012-13, and so their Key Stage Two National Assessments were tracked in order to report
upon their post-Reading Recovery progress.
Note: %age refers to the percentage of discontinued children in this group, who received these marks out of a total of
all those in the group with discontinued programmes and Key Stage Two SATs results provided.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
In 2012-13, data collected for over 1,200 children at Key Stage Two National Assessment provide
robust and consistent weight to the evidence that gains made in Reading Recovery are sustained
through to age 11.
Almost every child who completed Reading Recovery (94% and 95%, respectively) achieved Level
3 or above in their Key Stage Two Reading and Writing National Assessments (Table 6.4). This
includes both those children who achieved the programme aims as well as those who were referred
for additional specialist support at the end of their lesson series. Given that Reading Recovery
seeks specifically to address the difficulties of the children who fail to reach Level 3 at the end of
Key Stage Two, this is a remarkable success.
The attainment gap between children in poverty and their peers had all but disappeared at Level 3,
with just 1% separating them in both writing and reading. The gap was a little wider at Level 4, but
still within eight percentage points for both reading and writing. For those children who achieved
accelerated progress the gap between children in poverty and their more advantaged peers was
even smaller at just 4% difference at Level 4 in both aspects.
The gender attainment gap was virtually closed for those children who had achieved the
programme aims: 81% of boys and 83% of girls attained Level 4 or above in the Reading
Assessment, consistent with the previous year’s findings. In writing, 72% and 76% respectively
achieved Level 4 or above. Even looking at all completed programmes, including those for children
referred for additional support, the gender gap is only 3% for reading and 4% for writing at Level 4
or above.
Children who speak English as an additional language (EAL) were especially successful at attaining
Level 4 or above in their Key Stage Two Writing Assessments, with 73% of those with completed
programmes doing so, alongside 77% of children who achieved accelerated progress. They
achieved marginally higher scores than their English-speaking counterparts on all other measures.
Clearly, gains made in Reading Recovery had been maintained. At this level, following Reading
Recovery, it would appear that the effects of poverty and gender have been largely ameliorated.
7: What was the efficiency of the Reading Recovery implementation?
Initial Professional Development (IPD) for Reading Recovery teachers is a one year, part time
course, accredited by the Institute of Education and delivered locally. Over the course of the year,
already experienced teachers gradually learn the complex techniques, fine grained observation and
sound professional judgment required to accelerate the learning of the most difficult to teach
children. During this time the teachers will be teaching children in Reading Recovery, concurrent
with attending professional development sessions taught by a qualified teacher leader. After this
initial year, Reading Recovery teachers attend Continuing Professional Development (CPD) under
the support and guidance of their teacher leader, in order to maintain their accredited status, to finetune their practice and engage in high level professional investigations of teaching and learning.
a) Experience
Table 7.1 – Experience of Reading Recovery teachers: The UK and the Republic of Ireland,
2012-13.
Reading Recovery Teachers
Years of Experience
Number
Percentage
In training year
302
18.4
Trained
Trained in previous year
Trained 2-3 years ago
Trained 4-5 years ago
Trained more than 5 years ago
1,335
179
668
317
171
81.6
10.9
40.8
19.4
10.4
Total
1,637
100
Note: This table excludes teacher leaders and teacher leaders in training.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
There were 1,637 Reading Recovery teachers in 2012-13 (Table 7.1) which represents a decrease
of around 200 teachers from the previous year. This is somewhat in contrast with the sharp decline
in numbers in 2011-12, something which reflected the financial uncertainty for schools and local
authorities/counties. It could, therefore, be tentatively claimed that provision for Reading Recovery
is beginning to stabilise as funding streams and staffing become clearer.
There has been an upswing of 50% in the number of teachers being trained in Reading Recovery,
compared with 2011-12, from 216 to 302. This represents 19% of the entire teacher force, in
contrast to 12% in the previous year. This suggests a renewed confidence in schools to invest in
Reading Recovery. In England, around one in 12 (8%) of the teacher cohort were in their training
year, and one in five teachers (19%) were training in Ireland.
Experienced teachers accounted for more than four out of five of the Reading Recovery teachers,
repeating the trend towards a more experienced work force that was evidenced in 2011-12. Over
70% trained two or more years ago, and the percentage of teachers who have been in the role for
five years or longer, has also risen.
Table 7.2 – Days taught and days missed by Reading Recovery teachers, sorted by teacher
experience: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Total Number of
Days Taught
Days Missed
Training Status
Teachers
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Teachers in training
302
169.9
35.9
10.3
11.7
Experienced teachers
1,335
161.4
37.9
15
23
Note: This table excludes teacher leaders and teacher leaders in training.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Experienced teachers missed slightly more lessons than teachers in their training year, although a
wide standard deviation is evident suggesting varied individual differences (Table 7.2). However,
there has been a small but steady year-on-year increase in the number of available lessons missed
by experienced teachers since ring-fenced funding for schools in England was removed in 2010.
This is a cause for concern.
b) Teacher responsibilities
Trained Reading Recovery teachers can be a valuable professional resource in schools, able to
provide advice and guidance to colleagues for the support of children who do not receive Reading
Recovery. Those who combine Reading Recovery with class teaching are often able to
demonstrate the application of Reading Recovery principles in the classroom. However, the
demands made upon a Reading Recovery teacher’s time can interrupt daily lessons and undermine
the effectiveness of the intervention. Part time teachers, on the other hand, whose sole
responsibility is Reading Recovery, can risk being marginalised, and their potential contribution to
wider school standards can be lost.
Table 7.3 – Days taught and days missed by Reading Recovery teachers, sorted by teacher
role in school: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Total Number of
Days Taught
Days Missed
Teacher Role
Teachers
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
RR teacher only
441
171.8
31.1
8.7
17.7
Class teacher and RR teacher
153
161.7
36.1
19.2
29.4
RR teacher and support
926
160.5
36.2
15
20.8
Other
117
148.3
46.9
24.1
25.4
Note: This table excludes teacher leaders and teacher leaders in training.
Note: ‘Other’ teachers are those with additional responsibilities, such as deputy head teachers.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Almost three quarters (73%) of all teachers in Reading Recovery had responsibility for other forms
of learning support in their schools or class teaching responsibilities (Table 7.3). This is a higher
percentage than in the previous year and could serve to indicate that schools are using the
expertise of the Reading Recovery teachers more widely to support the needs of young struggling
literacy learners.
However, teachers whose sole responsibility was to deliver Reading Recovery missed fewer days
teaching than those with other duties, albeit with fewer opportunities to teach compared with 201112. On average, nine teacher days over a week were lost from the lesson series for every child.
Those who combined Reading Recovery with class teaching were more than twice as likely to be
drawn away from their daily teaching, missing 19 days, on average. This is likely to have had a
detrimental effect on children’s progress.
The ‘other’ group had the highest amount of lost lessons, amounting to almost 5 weeks of teaching
time. Whilst a disparate grouping, many of these Reading Recovery teachers were also SENCOs or
senior managers who were likely to have other calls on their time which interrupted their Reading
Recovery teaching. Once again, it is highly likely that this will have had a detrimental effect on
children’s progress.
c) Days worked and missed
Children selected for Reading Recovery are those finding it hardest to learn literacy, and the steady
build of daily lessons is an essential factor in enabling these children to make the accelerated
progress necessary for them to catch up with their faster learning peers.
Table 7.4 – Number of Reading Recovery lessons missed, sorted by reason for lesson
missed and by programme outcome: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Lessons Missed
Programme Outcome
Child
Child
Teacher
Teacher
Total
Absent
Unavailable
Absent
Unavailable
All children
Number of lessons lost
54,488
29,131
24,704
54,739
163,062
Average lessons per child
5.3
2.8
2.4
5.3
13.3
Standard deviation
5.5
2.8
3.8
6.5
11.7
Discontinued children
Number of lessons lost
Average lessons per child
Standard deviation
39,736
5.2
5.4
21,757
2.9
2.8
18,749
2.5
3.9
41,753
5.5
6.7
121,995
16
11.1
Referred children
Number of lessons lost
Average lessons per child
Standard deviation
9,888
6.9
6.3
4,822
3.4
3
3,748
2.6
3.8
8,326
5.8
6.3
26,784
18.6
10.9
Note: This table excludes teacher leaders and teacher leaders in training, and the children taught by them.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
Almost three school weeks of teaching (13 days) was lost to children in Reading Recovery owing
to a range of factors (Table 7.4). Child absence and teacher unavailability accounted for the largest
numbers of days lost. Child absences were higher for children who were referred for further support
following their Reading Recovery lessons. As already noted, these children had slightly longer in
Reading Recovery than those who made accelerated progress (Table 2.3). Their absences
could be a contributing factor both to programme length and to their inability to make
accelerated progress.
Teachers were in school but unavailable to teach for an average of five days, consistent with the
findings in 2011-12 (Table 7.4). However, in this reporting year, there was little difference between
teacher availability for those children who made accelerated progress and those who were referred
to school for additional support.
d) Outcomes
Table 7.5 – Number of pupils served and their programme length, sorted by teacher training
status, and programme outcome: The UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2012-13.
Pupils Served
Weeks in Programme Lessons in Programme
Teacher Training Status/
Programme Outcome
Number Percentage
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Teachers in training
Discontinued
1,333
87.4
18
5.2
69.2
20.6
Referred
193
12.6
19.7
5.1
75.1
20.2
Experienced teachers
Discontinued
Referred
6,296
1,249
83.4
16.6
17.8
19.1
4.7
4.4
71.1
75.2
19.2
18.9
Note: This table excludes teacher leaders and teacher leaders in training, and the children taught by them.
Source: European Centre for Reading Recovery: Annual Data Collection, 2012-13.
For a second year, teachers in training were able to lift slightly more children on average to
age-appropriate levels of literacy than their more-experienced colleagues (87% and 83%
respectively: Table 7.5).
There was very little difference between the efficiency of experienced teachers and teachers in
training in relation to the number of weeks and lessons taught. Children who achieved age-related
expectations did so in around 18 weeks or 71 lessons, representing on average, 35 and a half
hours of teaching.
Children referred for further support were, appropriately, given slightly longer (one extra week on
average by experienced teachers, almost two extra weeks by teachers in training) in Reading
Recovery, although in that time they were more likely to have missed lessons (Table 7.4).
Appendix A: Progress in Reading Recovery
Typical text at Reading Recovery level one
Typical text at Reading Recovery level 10
Typical text at Reading Recovery level 17